tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 5, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EST
calls, e-mail, and tweets. after that, a look at the estate tax which is set to go up at the end of the year unless congress and the white house act. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] senior republican aides are contemplating a fallback plan for the so called "fiscal cliff", which includes extending tax cuts for the middle class and resuming a fight over spending and taxes for the wealthy later. meanwhile, going overseas, nato makes a move on the turkish border with syria. military officials deny preparations for military intervention. protesters in egypt march on the palace as mohamed morsi flees.
international and domestic news is all on the table for you this morning as we open up the phone lines. also, send us a tweet. or post your comment on facebook. or send us an e-mail. we will get back to that new york times story. first, some other headlines on the domestic front. here is the "washington times."
in politics, here is the denver post -- open phones before the first 30 minutes. we have a short show because the house is coming in at 9:00. steve in gaithersburg, maryland, a republican caller. caller: host: when did the republican party become the party that restricts poor? i understand the tax cut for the rich is important to some people, but i feel the good thing would be unlimited in of
government at the federal level. that has nothing to do with this. that would be more on the spending cuts. host: what do you make of the back a plan being reported by the new york times saying if we cannot come to some sort of deal, we should just passed tax cuts for the middle class americans and then fight later on for spending cuts and increasing taxes for the wealthy? caller: the tax cut for the general population is great. that would be good for stimulating the economy. but the big thing is hit there needs to be a balanced plan. we need more revenue and we need less spending at the federal level. what is good for california is not good for virginia and what's good for virginia is not good for maryland. maybe we need to focus on reducing the federal government overview.
been there would not be as much spending or taxes needed. then let the states deal with the taxes they need to take care of their citizens. host: robert, milwaukee, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that the republican party, not all of them, i think it's just the tea party, they are destroying the republican party. when i saw senator dole in his wheelchair yesterday and military disabled individuals throughout the world, when they did not pass the ada treaty, which was signed in 1990 by president george h. w. bush and then it continued on with president bush and clinton and everyone else thereafter, when they did that, now i understand
they are just not the party that any of us would want to be involved with. that's all i have to say. host: the video we just showed was shot by a c-span producer with his iphone. it was the former senator in a wheelchair making his way into the chamber yesterday for that vote. here's the new york times with that story. and a screen grab. seven he sat in support of the tree. -- he sat in support of the
treaty. he's 89 and is a republican at who was the majority leader. his wife elizabeth dole and he left the port and republicans voted down the street. he was recently released from walter reed military center. now an independent caller from ohio, lee. caller: good morning. i am calling about something i have not heard about. people willing to take the $15 or $20 extra they're getting from the to% tax break, it is coming off their pension when they retire. social security is based on what you contribute. host: you are talking about the payroll tax cut, extending that possibly as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations.
caller: right. it will cost them in the long run. host: because the money is coming out of social security. politicians say that will not happen. they say social security will have its money. caller: they tell you all kinds of things. host: john in atlanta, democratic caller. caller: how are you? it seems like it is open phones. i think as far as the fiscal cliff is concerned, the democrats and republicans need to come together and they need to do that rather quickly, because that's the way i feel about it. host: do you think it decides it should just agree to pass the tax cuts -- extend the tax cuts
for middle-class americans and then wait until later to resume the debate over spending and tax cuts for wealthy americans? caller: they should start with that. and if they agree on that, then they can go on to the next thing. but this lagging and dragging along on both sides makes no sense. host: here is the washington post this morning. [video clip] >> i don't think the issue right now has to do with sitting in a room. the issue right now that is relevant is the acknowledgment that if we are going to raise
revenues that are sufficient to balance with very tough cuts we have already made and further reforms and entitlements i'm prepared to make, that we are going to have to see the rates on the top to% go up. we are not calling to able to get a deal without it. host: that was the president talking about whether or not he has sat down with house speaker john boehner, saying you don't need to sit in a room to get it done. mitch mcconnell in the papers this morning reportedly saying there are no formal talks haven't. those talks continue behind-the- scenes. the washington post this morning reports in a news conference last month obama suggested he might let the top rate rise to levels somewhat lower than a 39.6%.
that's the washington post this morning. below that, governors say the fiscal cliff would hurt their states' economies. several governors met at the white house yesterday and with political leaders to say something needs to be done or their economies and on the state level will be heard. -- be hurt. let's go to walter in new jersey, independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't know what's wrong with these people, because they have to come to some kind of agreement. the gop has to give ground, taxes wouldybody's go up just to save 2%.
it just does not cut it. it is a bad move politically and bad for the country. host: polloi in johnsonville, virginia. -- floyd. caller: i was thinking about the fiscal cliff. i don't think that's the problem at. the problem is when we fell off the moral cliff. our president said gay marriage was ok. and america killing so many babies. side,e get back on god's everything else will take care of itself. that's the way it is. a guy said it seemed like christians are down and out. let me tell you, christians are
the happiest people there is, because we have read the book and we know how it ends. kristin people have a better life -- christian people. we need to get on the moral cliff. host: now the "washington times front page -- inside the paper, they quote several conservative house lawmakers. an iowa republican says the speaker has to look at where the votes are going to come from. and a republican from texas says --
lot of backlash in the papers after what the speaker put out yesterday, from his own rank and file, including senator jim demint, who represents the tea party caucus in the senate. and this in the washington post -- sticking with the tea party, here is the headline in the washington times -- mike in florida, cocoa beach, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank you guys for c-span and for washington journal. that is the program that gave me the capacity to listen to an
opinion that is maybe 180 degrees opposite of what i think. what i'm calling about is we all want to have a strong country. we all want to solve our fiscal problems, but nobody is talking about the military. i lived on a military base four years. waste is rampant. i lived 3 miles from one today. they put new windows and doors in the house and a new roof and then they tear it down in three years. i've walked them -- now they are building a deck outside their officers' club on the ocean. so much waste is going on with the military. we all want to have a strong country, but what is wrong with changing the accounting principles of our military? they use a budgetary accounting system.
that does not work. if they don't use all the money in their budget, then they get their budget cuts. but if they use it all, they get to continue to operate as normal. if you are tearing down buildings that have new windows and a new roof, it seems wasteful. i think that area of our budget needs to be closely looked at so that -- taking it away from seniors and school kids is the wrong answer. i don't understand why everybody in this country does not get that. host: a tweet -- now? mike, an independent caller in wisconsin. caller: the fiscal cliff and are 100 trillion dollar debt, mostly
it's the fault of the american people. i blame congress in general for not having the courage to tell us the truth, but it is the american people who don't want to deal with that is essentially forcing this thing. host: 1 cumene? hat do you mean? caller: we have unsustainable debt. it has to be reformed. for decades we have been electing politicians will tell us what we want to hear, but we cannot pay for the programs we want. until the american people themselves can deal with the truth, we're not going to solve this. contacting our politicians, offering sacrifice of the programs we like is the only solution. until then, politicians will not have the courage to cut the programs that we simply tell them not to touch. host: here is the editorial in
we are the runs that ran up the bartec. our grandchildren will ultimately have to pay it until we realize we have to stop drinking and start paying the bill, nothing will happen. host: what should happen to tax cuts? caller: it should not be one or the other. it should be all of the above. the rich should go back to the clinton era tax cuts where they did a fantastic. the middle class should pay a portion. everybody should pay something. the big elephant in the room is entitlements. we have to address health care. in the end, like it or not, we will go to a single payer, because it is the only worldwide system that provides services at reduced cost. host: we will keep taking your phone calls. some other headlines, in the baltimore sun, they are
reporting manning is confident things will turn out ok if he does not spend the rest of his life in prison. and some other news. we told you about protestors reaching the palace in egypt. this is the headline and picture in the "washington times" -- 100,000 people protesting against the islamist leader. and in the baltimore sun, patriot missiles going to turkey. and in the washington post, the front page on syria, the syrian
army weakening as rebels make gains in that country. in the new york times, a school is hit in the violence and school shortages worsening. in germany, the headline in the wall street journal, a popular german chancellor angela merkel launches a bid for a third term. we will hear from rick in lodi, california, a republican. caller: the disabilities act is a sham. i am in building construction,. works. they are already trying to come out with an international code book on disabilities. not going tos it's change the laws, and he is lying. host: you're talking about yesterday's debate in the
senate. caller: exactly. i wish he would be as passionate about try to get people on the west coast back to work. if they would work as hard on that as the disabilities act, this country would not have the fiscal cliff because people would be working. everybody is always trying to blame the tea party. but tea party did not put this country in debt. but the party is trying to bring it to the attention of the people that these entitlements cannot be afforded any more. it is like your charge card. if you keep charging and taking and taking, pretty soon you have to pay it back. that is what is going on with this fiscal cliff. it's time to pay. it's not the republican party's fault. obama has been in office four years. he has doubled to the trillions of dollars in debt. host: are you a tea party supporter? caller: i'm not affiliated with the tea party, but i am tired of hearing them blame it, because i see the hard-working generation
that are in their 60s that paid in and they are saying enough is enough, we are tired of you taking it out of our wallets. we are tired of crazy liberal laws being shoved down our throats. our rights are being taken away from us day after day and we are like zombies in this country. host: sumter, south carolina, william, a democrat. we're listening to your thoughts this morning on open phones. caller: i am a new listener and a veteran. i am trying to figure out what's going on. when people see that the fiscal cliff and all this other stuff i am trying to understand, how it came about, it was from all the money being spent on war.
and i wanted to mention about the veterans. we are the backbone of this country in a sense. that's what they need to focus on more. host: thanks for calling. and thanks for watching. bloomberg is reporting this morning that senator reelect elizabeth warren from massachusetts is poised to join the senate banking committee. and aside story, front page of the washington times has this piece about the former president and secret service.
that's the story. the new york daily news has this picture of mitt romney shopping at costco in california and a dark hat and dark sunglasses. they did not agree on much in the presidential race, but it's clear mitt romney and joe biden share a love of bargains, both of them shopping at costco recently. and the baltimore sun has this headline on their front page -- the storm caused $127 million of
damage in maryland. now to republican caller in california, sandy. caller: i just went through an experience with my mother who went from the hospital to a nursing home and was told she could not have any rehabilitation services, that she was only allowed to stay in the nursing home seven days. then we had to make arrangements with hospice. they will all the paper that seven days. and she has to pay for everything else honor own. if hospice came to her house, she will have to pay. she paid into medicare many years. i think all seniors need to be aware and be prepared that this is what will happen to them. that's my experience. host: in philadelphia, rick is a democratic caller. caller: i cannot believe i got through. the last time i spoke with c-
span was 2003. give me about a minute and 30 seconds. host: go! caller: i think barack obama should keep doing what he is doing, hold his ground. i think it is cold hearted and evil that these rich people don't want to pay what needs to be paid to keep the country running. everybody in the capital -- what is the definition of entitlement? people in the capital get pensions and free health care for not even doing anything, and personal cars and things like that. so do they want to be a country unto themselves, a country of texas or a country of florida? host: running out of time.
we only have about 30 minutes for open phones this morning. i will have to let you go. the hottest property to emerge from obama's victory over the running is not the much lauded campaign theme, is something far more valuable that is being guarded as jealously as the pentagon, obama's database of 16 million voters, volunteers, and owners. and wall street journal, gop immigration push grows. george w. bush in a speech yesterday argued immigrants could be a force for good in society, yesterday. in the baltimore sun, this headline -- the washington times reported
this morning, president obama defaulted on freedom of information act compliances. the front page of usa today as a lengthy piece about poverty in this country. springfield gardens, new york, independent caller. caller: how are ya? it seems to me that the debt goes up because of the wars. when they want to pay for it, they want to pay for it with entitlements. i heard one of the congressman talking thethey cut $500 billion from the military budget, and he does not
talk out the percentage of the military budget that was cut and then compare that to the so- called entitlement they want to take away. the last thing i want to say is this, those people -- first of all, i would like to make it clear i don't have anything against any people, but there seems to be a problem when people to think about israel, because they say that they are entitled to the land because of the bible. but i think people should actually read the bible and find -- read galatians 24-4 that says it is an analogy. so it is a story to describe something. it's not even real. that's all i wanted to say. host: we're learning former representative jack brooks, a texas democrat, who was one of the giants of the house during
this time, died tuesday at the age of 89. he was in the motorcade when jfk was assassinated in 1963 and later lost his seat in the republican wave in 1994. many of you had comments on the so called "fiscal cliff" and that is our topic. will c. wood peter welch, a vermont democrat, and chief deputy whip for the democrats. later, a discussion on the estate tax and capital gains tax. -- we will speak with peter welch, a vermont democrat. we will be right back. >> ♪ >> we're at the new york state
museum. this is art gallery that dedicated to the history of september 11, the attacks at the world trade center in new york. we decided to tell the story for the first moments of the attack using objects and photographs from the world trade center site. this is a piece of steel from the south tower of the world trade center, 4 1/7 through 9. we put it in a place where the public can actually touch it. it gives the visitor a tangible experience. this is a piece of steel from the north towers, course #71 through 74. this is a dramatically bent piece of steel. this is within 10 ports of the impact from flight 11 at the north tower. you can the openings where the windows would have been, this
metal strip that would have held the aluminum clad on the front of the building. every piece of steel is marked so we know which building and which before and which side of the building. this one we chose because of it was so close to impact and because it had the numbers. it actually has the stock numbers, 71-74. >> this weekend, american history tv and c-span's local content vehicles as we look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of new york's capital city, albany, saturday at noon eastern on "book tv" on c-span2 and on sunday on c-span3 on american history tv. washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome peter
welch, chief deputy whip, also served on the oversight and government reform committee. thanks for being here. the fiscal cliff negotiations, the house gop put out their proposal yesterday. "usa today" has -- reaction?r guest: i disagree. on the revenue, with the speaker has proposed with $800 billion, there's no great increase. so-called cleaning up the tax code. the problem is you start going into the middle class and start
having the middle class pay more money. on the revenue there is how much do we raise and where does it come from. had alear president obama specific proposal to raise the rates to the clinton era for the top two%. i think that is what will happen. there was a majority of republicans who agreed with that. second, on the 1.1 trillion entitlement cuts, that is really a bad idea. what is doing is approaching that by slashing benefits rather than reforming the system. we have to save money on health care, not just in medicare but in health care. we spend much more than most countries and we get less. right now in medicare when we buy prescription drugs, we buy wholesale, but we pay retail. the law requires us to pay retail. whereas in the va and medicaid we do both price discounts in purchasing. if we did that in medicare, that
would save us $160 billion a year. what i would like to see is us save money on health care. we need to do that, but it must be through system reform. host: 10 to save enough money through system reform without looking at benefits? guest: you've got to start there, because you really don't want to say some day we will have a system that it is broken. if we went through things that are legitimate ways to save money and reform the system, then we get into the benefits and we would either have to adjust the pavements or make decisions on how to deal with the benefits. but you have to start where you can actually save money. so there really is some common ground here. health care is too expensive. it's not just medicare. and thousand people they are going into the medicare system, so that's a challenge. that really says let's reform the system. host: where is the common ground? guest: if the acknowledgement
that the cost of health care is going up at 2 or 3 times the rate of inflation. the approach the republicans have taken and mr. john boehner is doing again is the voucher style approach, where instead of reforming the system, what you do is impose a cost shift on two individuals. that is when happened with the ryan plan. basically he did not change a thing, like prescription drug price negotiation. he just said the government will give you $7,600 and your on your own for the rest. the full burden of the rising cost gets shifted on to seniors. host: "usa today" writes this --
if their proposal is serious, you are saying you cannot collect benefits, so how do we tame the entitlement program? guest: the usa is judging it on the basis of how high the number is. i judge serious by how are you going to make the system work can be sustainable. let's say you are company and you are under enormous cost pressures. you are the ceo and asking managers on advice on what to do. one person says we can change the content of our products that would make it in. but we probably could get away with it for awhile to save money. another person says our supply chain is not efficient and if we changed our production process
this way, we can improve quality and save money. the ceo will go with the latter because that's about making it work and work better. that has to be part of this debate when it comes to health care entitlements. i emphasize it's not just medicare. we have employers out there that are struggling to try to provide affordable health care to their workers. we have workers who have been giving up pay raises and or 15 years in order to try to hang on to the limited health care benefits they have. so there is common ground. i actually do think the speaker wants to get a deal, but we are still a ways from it. host: are you confident we will reach a deal > guest:. i am: i think it's on taxes, where it's really difficult. the speaker knows revenues have to go up, but the people he
represents in the republican caucus, their platform was lowering taxes. so he has to persuade people to vote to raise taxes. that's a tough order. second, he is up in the ante on medicare by going back to the ryan style proposal benefit cuts. third, the president wants to have the debt ceiling temporarily resolved as part of any agreement. the republicans and mr. banner will not agree to that. -- mr. john boehner. it may be much easier for him to have a debate on taxes in january than the republicans to vote on lowering taxes. it's not the way we should do it, but it's the way it may get done. host: the front page of the new york times -- there would possibly look at
extending the tax cuts for middle-class americans if the studio sides cannot come to agreement. then later when there's another deadline, go back and fight for more spending cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy americans. the house leader nancy pelosi asked to get them to put extending tax cuts for the middle class on the floor. do you have enough votes? guest: we don't have enough votes to get the discharge petition. discharge petitions often are not successful. the republicans are in a box. now they appear to be defending tax cuts for the rich even at the expense of tax cuts for 98% of americans. it's not a good place to be. but the backup position as a lot of danger in it. if we go back to the debt ceiling fight where we are willing to use that as an economic weapon of mass destruction to get our way and
that is what the speaker is talking about the, using the debt ceiling divorce is you want a president with respect to the budget, there are enormous collateral damage consequences to using that tool. we would default. america has never defaulted. we came within a whisper of doing that in august and it led to the current credit downgrade for us in history. the debt ceiling is something republicans and democrats have grandstanded about. last august we went into new territory where it was a hardball tactics. even if you were successful in your tactic, you do real damage to the economy. it's a very dangerous tactic to use that can only lead to harm for average americans. host: we have some phone calls for you. dan is in gaithersburg, maryland, a republican caller. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call.
good morning. this is a question about, there's talk about universal health care and it would be nice to have a perfect system in health care for everyone. we keep comparing it to nations that are much smaller in size than ours and much smaller economies. it might be easier to run universal health care on a smaller scale than such a large scale like our country. iis it wise to set up systems the way other nations have? is it fair to compare when we have much more people to care for? guest: you've got a point. it is very complicated and is a huge challenge. the bottom line, we do want to have universal access. much like we want universal access to education. we've got to work hard every day
to make certain that it's good quality and that it's affordable. i think it is fair for us to compare ourselves to other nations. we are talking primarily about the western industrialized nations where their delivery systems are much less expensive to deliver care and whereby the measures of things like infant mortality, obesity, other factors, they have better outcomes than we do. whatever it is you are delivering as a service, education or health care, we should always try to examine are we doing it the right way and can we do it better. even if we say we don't want universal health care, if somebody gets sick, most of the time they end up in the hospital and they will get care. the cost of that care has simply shifted onto everyone else who is paying insurance. if you have health care at
work, $1,100 of your premium goes to paying for uncompensated care, for people that short at the emergency room without coverage. host: on twitter -- guest: she's right in a way, because it's not a cliff. this is the design of speaker boehner and other republicans, on january 1 we go back to the clinton tax rates on everybody. second, it's the beginning of the process of 1.2 trillion in spending cuts, half of it from the pentagon and the other half on domestic spending. but it would be gradual. if we got to gingrich first with nothing done, congress would still have time to act in both areas before the impact of those policies taking effect. host: economists disagree.
years the wall street journal ---- here is the wall street journal. guest: i think there's some basis for that. what is happening in congress, it's dysfunctional, we are using brinksmanship. that's what happened in the debt ceiling fight last august and what happened in the budget debate in december 2011 when we went right up to the midnight hour to determine whether we would keep the lights on in government. it is a function of congress not being able to find common ground and focus on making progress, particularly on the republican side there is a view we cannot have any new revenues as part of any solution. ben has been politically discredited. it cannot work. but there is danger in this. i agree with that.
the preferred action is to reach an agreement sooner rather than later. get auch better for us to good agreement that is durable. host: john in missouri, democratic caller. caller: good morning. health care costs, my wife and i live on a combined social security income of 14 cows and dollars per year. that is combined. if we are still making mortgage payments on our house. -- $14,000 combined. about a year ago i went into the hospital for an angioplasty, sent by my general practitioner. i spent 23 hours in the hospital. the total bill was $29,000. i never even saw the doctor to
get the angioplasty. thewe don't get -- government pays for health care, but the private sector is the one driving up the bill. we need to do something about the private sector in the medical field. get 100,000 people to send you their bills from the hospital and make these people justify these outrageous costs they are charging the government. guest: the cost is unbelievable. anybody who states that the hospital, you not only get that bill, but then you get a bill for the stay in the surgery room and from the air anesthesiologist. what we have is this fee for service system here that encourages honor. if you have an incentive, it will produce results. the results produced by the people service system is you get a lot of services offered that
many times are not necessary. -- the fee for service system. ability of any consumer to pay. a $23,000 bill. he's right. inst: let's move on to alan california, a republican caller. caller: i am just south of santa barbara. we have gone over the fiscal cliff here in california. we are billions of dollars in debt. democrats and the labor unions are bankrupting this state. if the democratic party is so good, then why are we bankrupt? don't you think it's time the unions, instead of spending billions of dollars on political campaigns give that money back to the membership so they can maybe pay their own wages and tax bears and people like me that live on fixed incomes don't
have to be taxed out of our homes and lose the money we have worked hard to make? guest: you have worked hard. number one, i cannot comment on the california situation. i just don't know enough about it. reports are that things are starting to turn around a little over there. it's tough to pass a budget if when you have the fiscal majority requirement. second, how we got here, it's not unions. wages for americans have been going down the past 115 years. people are not keeping up with inflation. the average american worker has taken a 2011 pay cut when you compare what they made 10 years ago to what they're making now. -- $2000 pay cut. on the spending, i disagree with you. the republicans in congress in particular have opened up the
piggy bank. when you have the war in iraq and the war in afghanistan on the credit card, that's a disgrace. never in the history of this country have we put the cost more on a credit card. with the bush tax cuts, they said it would increase the economy. it did not. we had higher tax rates under clinton and then lower tax rates under bush. these are policies we have passed in this country that have led to this. it has primarily been under republican leadership. if it does not mean democrats don't have some responsibility. host: peter welch is our guest until the top of the hour. the democrat from vermont, the chief deputy whip for the house leadership on the democratic side. we're talking about the so called "fiscal cliff" and our cameras have been covering all the events here in washington as both sides tried to negotiate
their argument with. if you go to our web site, c- span.org, we have a special web pages at a side on the fiscal cliff and you can also send in your tweets. we will go to payton next in london, kentucky, a democrat. caller: thank you. i am one of the original baby boomers. i live in one of the poorest areas in the country, which is also heavily republican area of the country. i have always felt [indiscernible]. host: we are losing you. caller: this constant living curtailment from the republicans
is a shameful way to protect the rich. host: we will leave it there. guest: he's right. our previous caller talked about he and his wife with a total income of $14,000 a year on social security, so he's right. he's not throwing money around. if you start to limit the cost of living to keep up with expenses, such as higher gas, higher rents, higher medical care,, and that makes it pretty tough. host: what are democrats willing to compromise on? guest: we are willing to fight for revenues. that's important, because this is the moment when we are going to have a significant component of revenues be part of any deal. number two is we did cut in the budget agreement $1.50 trillion. it's important to remember. number three, on health care, we are willing to work with folks whose goal is to try to bring
down the cost of health care through savings. if we put together a big deal, there are 100 of us in the house, 60 democrats, 30 republicans, we sent the super committee's letter saying put everything on the table. that meant republicans were saying taxes. and democrats were saying health care, meaning medicare had to be considered as well. if we had the spirit of compromise where the goal is something very substantial for the country in debt reduction of $4 trillion, even though there would be some pain for everybody, i think i could explain this to my constituents why it was worth it for the country and for their children to do this. host: you have any concerns that your voice is adequately being represented in these negotiations? the public sees the house majority leader -- excuse me, house speaker john boehner and senate majority leader johharry reid at the microphone, but they
don't see the house democratic voice. guest: we feel pretty confident the president is doing a good job for us. he campaigned explicitly on a tax increase. what? president ever? you just don't do it. but he did. and he won. the american people know that we have to do it. so he's at the table arguing for revenues, for a balanced approach. he has put $400 billion in medicare savings on the table. hi think house democrats still pretty good in having president obama being at the table. host: he has agreed in the past to raise the eligibility age for medicare to 67. host: i disagree with it. studies show it does not save money. you have seniors at 65 and 66 who need health care. so the president is flexible. everything he agrees to might not be something i would prefer. host: you would support him in
the yen? guest: i would like to, yes. we will back to see what the final deal is. but i am quite confident the way he's handling the situation. host: irene, independent caller in aurora. caller: just a couple comments. democrats, although their policies are things i agree with, i do, but there seems to be a messaging problem. i don't understand -- i have already come to the conclusion that republicans don't feel. but democrats have an issue, as badly as the republicans are picking up on talking points, the democrats picked up on the topic points of the republicans but they don't straighten it out. that confuses people.
say for instance entitlements, medicare and social security are not entitlements. we have paid into that. we have earned those benefits. it's like an insurance policy. if you don't pay into it, you don't have it. so that is not an entitlement. we turned those benefits. the guy that called in that said california is bankrupt, they already went over the cliff, that is another one of those talking points. host: we're running out of time. guest: i accept that criticism. a lot of us don't get it clear all that often. there is a difficulty, in the presidential race for instance, it candidates spent a billion dollars. most of that was on television ads. when i talk to folks back home
in vermont they throw their hands up in the air because it is a blizzard of sound bites coming at them. there's so little serious c- span-style conversation about what our issues are and what the trade-offs are and what the pros and cons are. so it's not just politicians, is the modern media situation we have where everybody can go to the cable outlet of their choice to hear presented to them what they already believe without any disputing it. host: let's hear from the republican, roy. caller: i am a republican, but the way it goes, i think the republicans or democrats, the democrats are socialists. i believe this country needs to go back to the survival of the fittest and we will see what happens after that. maybe we will go back to the constitution. host: go to lashandra in
vermont, a democratic caller. caller: good morning -- to sean. caller: good morning. my question is about the debt. good morning, peter. what if we go over the? fiscal the you cannot save your way into prosperity. would there be any appetite for infrastructure? we made no distinction between debt for consumables like military consumables or an employment and capital projects. is there any affidavit to reallocate for capital projects to get us out of this mess? guest: this is a good time. if you are borrowing to build a bridge and it is being used for three generations, that is a legitimate reason to borrow. we have wpa buildings in vermont built in the roosevelt
era that we're still using. that is legitimate. we have a crumbling infrastructure in this country. roads and bridges and airports need improvement. we need to have broad band throughout the country. there are things that need to be done. barring money for those capital projects, that makes sense. to pay for that over time. a strong appetite for that here. it would be wonderful if we could work with republicans. it is an area we could start making some progress. the president does have an infrastructure components. host: our time with you insus short. what is on the schedule?
guest: we are kind of waiting around. we have 49 new democratic members. there is a lot housekeeping activity. the real work is being done behind three closed doors. host: we will have to wait and see. thank you for talking to our viewers. we continue to looking at different aspects of the so- called fiscal cliff. joseph schatz will join us. >> an update on the situation in egypt. the president is back at work in the presidential palace in cairo. he returned a day after he left through a back gate.
about 300 opposition supporters remain camped out in front of the main gate. the muslim brotherhood has called for a counter rally today. an update on the strike in the ports of los angeles. a tentative agreement to avoid the strike has been reached. clerical workers are expected to be back on the job this morning. the strike has kept shoppers from delivering billions of dollars of cargo as longshoremen refused to cross picket lines. negotiations continue in washington on the so-called fiscal cliff. president obama plans to enter questions from business members. the group has been urging action to prevent huge automatic tax
increases in january. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> we have not coordinated care. all these services have so many cracks that the cracks are as harmful as the diseases that we're treating. you have to step back and ask, are we hurting people overall? what are we doing? now we have the report saying 30% of everything we do not be necessary in health care. 30% of medications we subscribe, the test and procedures we order. this is something for the first time been called out as a problem. >> this function in the health- care industry. what hospitals will not tell
you. urday night at 10:00 p.m. on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have been focusing on different aspects of the fiscal cliff. we want to look at capital gains tax and the estate tax. what is the estate tax? guest: it goes back to history -- it was put in place to prevent the united states from developing an aristocracy. a tax on estates that are passed down to heirs. republicans called the death
tax. they have characterized it as a bad thing. it has a lot of a populist opposition to it. george w. bush signed in a phase-out of the estate tax. the top rate stays at 55%. the exemption level started rising from $1 million and going out. up. it was repealed completely in 2010 for oneyear. then its sprang back to life as part of the extension of the bush tax cuts that president obama signed into law. you have a debate -- very few members dispute that it needs to be continued.
the debate is over whether you continue it at the current level. there is an exemption level, $10 million for a couple. or at the white house would prefer a 45% rate. that is the debate right now. there's a split among democrats. the white house wants a less generous estate tax. max-leaning states like baucu baucus. host: that was the headline recently in "the wall street journal," showing the senators.
at its highest, was that was the estate tax? how many people did the estate tax affect? guest: we are talking tens of thousands. right now it affects 3000 the estates. the exemption level is set high historical novel. it has come down significantly. big argument from conservatives is it hits small businesses and farms. the number a hits is a small fraction. host: if nothing happens, what happens to the estate tax?
guest: then it goes back to the levels of an exemption of $1 million. host: and that could hit about 55,000 estates in 2013. what do republicans want to do? guest: a lot of republicans like to see this repealed. some democrats support that on principle that there should not be an estate tax. the reality is that pretty much everybody in the room acknowledges it would be too big of a hit to the treasury to repeal it. it was extended at a rate that they found favorable.
the most likely outcome is that it continues at its current level, assuming they get some sort of deal to extend many of the bush-era tax cuts. host: the white house estate tax proposal is to increase it to 45%. host: you said there is a populist backlash on this. why? guest: conservatives have been able to showcase this as a death tax. you are being taxed when you die. some families are forced to sell
property upon the death of a family member. they have been able to strike a chord with a lot of people. it affects a small number of people nationally. it hits the overall anti-tax feeling among conservatives. the government is intruding where it should be. host: moving on to capital gains. guest: the capital gains tax goes back to the start of the income tax code where you are investing and you sell a stock or a piece of art or a piece of capital and you are taxed on the gains you have made on it. right now that tax cut was extended.
15% taxe in the 10% or bracket and, you pay nothing on capital gains. you take 15% if you're in an upper tax bracket. you have republicans fighting for an extension of the current rate. president obama wants it to go back to the 20% rate. dividend taxes are on dividends that are paid out by companies. george w. bush wanted to follow parity, that they should be taxed at the same rate.
what would happen when the tax rates expire, the capital gains rate would go up 20%. the dividend rate would go to 39.6%. there would be a big gap there. they want to maintain that parity and to find something between 50% and almost 40% -- 15% and almost 40%. why is this a battle? guest: it is a big deal for the fight over income inequality. democrats have long targeted the capital gains tax as something that makes the tax code less
regressive and increases in a quality. a lot of wealthy people make money through investments. it is a big issue for corporations and investors who feel corporations are already taxed and you're essentially putting another tax. host: who pays the capital gains tax? guest: if you buy a stock and make money, you are paying it. it tends to hit upper income earners more. anybody in the stock market will be paying that. host: if your pension or 401(k), are you paying it? guest: it will hit everybody in the investment community. host: we're talking about
capital gains and the estate tax with joseph schatz. here are the numbers. mike is an independent college in illinois. caller: i wanted to make three points to clarify this discussion. the reason we have an estate tax is because it is is social tax. people could buy off our congressman, which they have done because of the bush tax cuts. when you die, there is an automatic step up in basis on the property you own. the government waives the capital gains tax on your
property and you only pay estate tax. regarding the capital gains, most americans have their money in 401(k)'s. when it comes out, it is taxed as ordinary income. the capital gains tax should be treated like ordinary income because all too many people make their livelihood off of capital gains. that's what i want your guest to address. guest: so many folks make your livelihood on capital gains. that came up with mitt romney. his effective tax rate was so low. he was payingthe capital gains tax instead of income tax so was
effective tax rate was 13% or 14%. the stepped-up basis is an important point as well. you pay taxes on capital gains tax, it is based on the value of the estate when you inherited it. host: the estate tax or the capital gains tax? guest: the estate tax. asset, you payn capital gains. guest: right. host: we have this comment on twitter from james. guest: corporations would say
the businesses are already being taxed. folk should not be taxed for investing in their business. host: double taxation. guest: that is the argument. when people die, they are being taxed again. that is the essence of the argument against the estate tax. host: can you start over? caller: a quick question about the comments of the 401(k). i used to work for a cpa firm. i understand they are income tax deferred instruments. when you take it out, the tax
you pay is income tax. the assumption is the rate would be lower. let's say the rate is 25% when you retire. that is higher than the current cap gains tax rate. ordoes not apply to 401(k)'s any other income tax deferred instrument. when you take them out, you pay taxes on them. guest: that is correct. you pay income tax and presumably when you retire, you are at a lower tax rate and that is the advantage. it is a separate issue. host: we are taking a look today at the estate and capital gains
tax. if nothing happens by the end of the year, take a look at what happens at the capital gains tax. host: talk about that last component. guest: that was an additional surtax. it was a way to pay for parts of the healthcare law. they will see the top rates a bump of 3.8% come january 1. that seems unlikely to be changed as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations. you'll still see that surtax on top of that.
host: this from twitter. guest: i leave that as it is. host: is that how much it could go up? guest: yes. host: currently it is 35%. go ahead, mark. caller: the previous caller mentioned capital gains -- the recent point about the medicare surcharge to pay for the affordable care act. if he thought it could be a solution to kill both of those birds with one stone. guest: i'm not a health-care
expert. host: no problem. we have this from twitter. guest: i believe that is the case. tom in california, go ahead. caller: i have several issues with the estate tax. i am a farmer if it comes back to the normal 1 million exemptions. we work together to build this estate. it wasn't just my parents but it is in my parents' name. i have to pay tax to something i have contributed to.
host: help people understand how farmers fall into this estate tax? how is it your estate is worth more than $1 million? caller: we have about 1,000 acres in sonoma county, california and it is worth about $8 million or so. we have another piece of property. we used to have a dairy operation on his property. it is surrounded by the city and to thel be at nennexted city.
the whole family created this estate. when we get the $5 million child., it isn't per you have to divide that up between all the kids. if one child, one child gets a $5 million. we continually invested plan. host: can you hang on the line? i want joseph schatz to address what you're saying. guest: there is a provision if one parent dies, they can pick up a portion of the exemption from the other parents. it is an extremely complicated process.
folks have to hire accountants and lawyers. it is enormously complicated. it has changed so much over the years. host: how much has your family spent on an estate lawyer? caller: $20,000 a year. host: how long have you been paying an attorney? caller: close to 10 years. host: how many kids in the family? caller: 3 kids. we are trying to divide the property in increments that will equal the $5 million so we can have that out of the situation before the estate tax changes by
the end of the year. you have to go through the legal processes to get this to happen because you don't know what will happen by the end of the year. we have to get the $5 million taken off the table before it goes down to the $1 million exemption. host: what about the state of california? is there an estate tax as well? caller: no. california just raise taxes on everybody making $250,000 or more. we will get hit at the state and federal level. we have a lot of land and people that rely on us for their livelihood. we have people that work in the
vineyards and cattlemaen. host: tom, you are land rich. cash poor? how much revenue do you bring in? caller: it is sort of divided up now. my brother has his own operation and i have mine. i spend $100,000 in expenses and equipment. host: ok. caller: just from my end. host: thank you for the call. guest: it is interesting. one issue is the calculation of how you set up the estate tax.
the rate is the issue. for other folks that are land rich, it is much more an issue for small businesses, ranches, farms, an issue of the exemption. how they can stay under the exemption and not get hit by the estate tax. some senators are fighting to keep things where they are with the estate tax. you have wealthy families and smaller businesses who are fighting for different aspects of it. in rhode island, good morning. abble ati used to dou
one point with a estate tax. there are a couple of things. the estate tax is a value tax. it is based on the value of the property you own. another thing that wasn't mentioned. there is insurance trust you can buy into that will help you. that insurance money will help the people pay the estate tax. when malcolm forbes was dying, he tried to go out and buy all his insurance. it was kind of late for him. he was on his way out.
the premiums were skyrocketing. there are ways to avoid or minimize your estate tax. guest: that is a good point. look at the numbers we have talked about. 0.2% of estates are affected. there are lots of ways for estates to avoid taxation. it is not hitting a lot of people. that is an argument that democrats use. it ishen you shrink it, affecting far fewer people than you think it is. host: $5 million exemption. it is hitting 3600 estates and
8% of farms and small businesses. guest: none of them what had more than 1% or 2% of estates. host: what is the difference between the estate tax and gift tax? guest: the gift tax is a backup and levied on a gifts that you give to someone else. it is a way to make sure that folks are not avoiding taxes during their lifetime by giving it all away at death. before the estate tax were at
different rates. that give you different advantages. that is the difference. an interesting point that a caller mentioned is that a lot of states linked their own estate and inheritance taxes to their own one. when taxes are scheduled to go up, this will have big ramifications at the state level. when the bush tax cuts phased out the estate tax, a lot of states found themselves without an estate tax. several states established new estate taxes to bring in more
revenue. host: maryann from michigan. caller: my heart really bleeds for the former who owns a multimillion-dollar estate and is wary about his one cowboy that he employs. i think that is what is wrong with this system. it is greed. host: "the new york times" is reporting this morning possibly republicans considering extending tax cuts for middle class americans. "the new york times" is reporting this --
host: any fallback plan from republicans does not include a plan for the estate tax. guest: there is no easy solution to what is happening right now. the senate passed their tax bill over the summer. it was going to include an estate tax extension, as well. $3.5 million exemption. it was not put into the bill. the bill will do with a lot of things that are expiring but
the estate tax will be left where was. that will be hanging out there. congress cannot let it hang out there for long. it shouldn't be at the level it was in 2001. it shows you how many things are hanging out there. even if fallback plan -- host: back to the capital gains tax on twitter. what does he mean by capital formation? guest: you want to encourage people to invest. you encourage people to invest by having a low capital gains rate. warren buffett and other said
investors are going to invest in a matter what the tax rate is. the tax rates will not be persuaded against investing the way they do now just because it rises 5%. philosophical argument has been you want to encourage people to invest and that is why you keep a low rate. as part of the tax reform that people are looking back to now, caplet gains and dividends rates or increase to pay for lower tax rates across the board. caller: hi. i believe that no taxpayer should pay more than 10 cents on the dollar. the effective tax rate should be
capped at 10%. the plan of double taxation. we are individual taxpayers. a corporation pays an employee and the employee pays taxes. a corporation pays the investors dividends. shouldn't the corporation and the dividend pay taxes? if not, it should employees pay taxes? the concept of the double taxation for individual taxpayers confuses me a little bit. guest: i'm not sure there is much i can add to that. when you add the taxes up,
whether corporate activity is being taxed multiple times. conservatives would say yes when you add it all up. the debate continues. host: breaker on twitter says -- he is referring to the issue of capital gains. the capital gains tax will go up 10%. host: john from new mexico. caller: thank you for taking my call. you read my tweet just a little
while ago. i want to continue on this theme of the lower capital gains rate. this low capital gains rate is a way the uber rich use to control to give themselves their own tax rate and their own general tax category to there everything in. they can lessen their participation in our democracy. i have investments, too. to only have to pay a 15% rate on that income seems silly to me. i pay normal taxes and normal social security. there is no need to incentivize
capital formation these days. host: are you retired? caller: i am still working. host: this is a story from "the wall street journal." host: "families with adult children." how can you take advantage if you're a couple and one spouse earns more than the other? guest: i would not want to delve into that. host: we will move on to jim in north carolina. go ahead, jim. caller: thank you for taking my
call. the lowering to the $1 million cap. my wife and i have never made more than $60,000 a year. we have amassed about $850,000 in amassed and we have a property and we have inherited a little. we would pay 55% of the $300,000 , which seems pretty exorbitant to me. the other comment i would like to make would be god only wanted 10% from the israelites. the high taxation rates seem kind of wild. inflation has driven everybody
to the $1 million level anyway. guest: 10%, god -- it goes to the fundamental issue of the opposition of the estate tax. it strikes a chord with a lot of people. host: we have this from twitter. holly from indiana. you are on the air. caller: ok. i am a farmer from indiana. we own about 300 acres and we formed an additional 500. if we have to pay the taxes, we have to sell the land and we no longer have they job.
if we don't have the farm land, we can make a living. arm that land,orm that land the united states will be relying on other countries for food. host: you have about 300 acres. caller: we also have our inventory. host: give people an idea how much the machinery costs. combine is about $1 million. ance that?do you find note caller: you take out a loan.
it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. you hope for a good year. this was a wobble year. you take out more loans for next year's crop. host: what do you put up for collateral? caller: your plant and your other assets -- your land and your assets. you might have farm buildings. host: has your family ever had to give up land or grain to pay off these loans? caller: oh, yeah. you just carry them on from year to year and so you have a good year.
the farm income goes way up our way down. host: give us an idea of revenue from year to year. caller: let me put my husband on. does the books. revenue from a year to year. caller: it varies from negative $100,000. some years we can make $200,000. host: how are you preparing for the estate tax? caller: which is tuckook an estate-planning lawyer. my dad is 94 years old and he owns most of the land.
he dies, it would be protected -- would have to sell off. host: the exemption is $1 million. are you over that? caller: yes, with all the assets. her husband.and a husban guest: this is the essence. you're talking about folks who have farms and a lot of assets that will put them over $1 million, over whenever the threshold is. they would have to start selling the land and the farm to pay that tax. there is a perception. critics of the estate tax has
said that the vast majority of folks paying the estate tax. there is a portion of them but they are the most compelling case against the estate tax. families with billions of dollars that can more likely of ford it. host: any discussion about trying not to include or exempting land or big assets like the combine. guest: it has been more focused on the exemption level. that is what they have in mind when they write the exemption level. i have not heard anything about exempting anything specific. host: perry in mississippi, go ahead.
caller: on the taxes, capital gains. how did people expect to get out of poverty? i worked in a furniture factory. now maybe i make middle income. around here and there is no way to get out. i learned how to invest by reading books. the money i put in the stock market i work for and i pay taxes on the money. if i'm lucky enough to pick a stock that makes money, i have to be taxes on tit. if your guest can explain --
what is the number at which i'm tax opposed to warren buffett? host: what is your tax bracket? caller: it varies. i am a self-employed. concrete. very hard work. my wife has quit her job and works for me. we could make $80,000 one-year. $40,000. year, year40,0 guest: if you're in a low tax bracket, you are not paying anything. that will go up to 10% and 20%
if the bush-era tax cuts expire. the larger issue is poverty and benefits from the bush era tax cuts. that has been a big issue as inequality has become a bigger issue. the capital gains rate has come up repeatedly. it has created greater inequality. the folks at the top end of the scale end up paying less in taxes. host: we have this from our twitter page. james in d.c. caller: i'm an attorney and work in probate.
this is a sleeper issue the journal me it has not covered. i don't think people realize the estate tax wiill inc rease. families are going to get whacked. host: hold on. d.c. has its own estate tax? caller: i am referring to the estate tax. host: ok. caller: if you die -- host: got it. host: how are you preparing your clients? caller: it depends upon the
family. they have a couple of weeks. i am not taking my normal ski vacation. we have a lot of work to do. you have to move assets. you have to take your house and put it in a trust. 55% is a high rates. some people may have to sell real estate to pay the tax. host: give us an idea of an average client. caller: we get a line of government workers or people working in the government sector. people who work hard. have a house -- they have a house. real estate is expensive.
a five million-dollar house is not uncommon in d.c. you have half of your exemption gone. host: the state to take the house and put it in a trust. caller: you have to put that in a non revocable trust. it gets complicated. do not do this on the internet. you can make use of non revocable trust. you can make it an asset. the average person doesn't know that. host: how do you do that in two weeks? caller: you can do it. most people's major asset is
their home. for people that have more money, it gets harder. give now. if you intended to give money to your kids, do with this year. get it out. if you wait, it is going to be harder. this gets complicated. you have an exemption. there is a current level of how much you can give to any one person. that right now is $5 million tax free this year. next year that drops to $1 million.
if you wanted to give money to your kids or give your kids and house, this is the year to do wit. did not wait until next year -- do not wait until next year. guest: the geographic impact. folks in high real estate markets. there has been talk about the mortgage interest deduction. on the estate tax, there is a big geographic element. farms and ranches, big deal. he is a lawyer. geographic divides are
important. host: allen in texas. caller: good morning. they are going to increase the capital gains tax and already people are dumping stocks to happen.at happenemay in these people in the position -- another good place to put money is in housing. create another bubble like we just went through. but a house, sell it, and there is no capital gains tax. guest: there is a lot of -- i could not speak to whether there is a transfer into real estate. a lot of companies are paying
out dividends right now. there is a lot of activity that seems to be going on in terms of folks dumping stocks to avoid what may happen because of the uncertainty of what happened on january 1. host: talking about dividends -- guest: they are trying to get in before the deadline. host: who are these folks? guest: the shareholders that are getting dividends. host: chris from arlington. caller: about the state tax code
to help farmers. there is a provision that allows land placed into an easement to get an additional exemption to protect farmland from having to be sold. host: joseph schatz? guest: another element -- another thing that drives down the number of estates. that is how you get down to the 0.2%. host: this is from dedi.
host: who is she talking about here? guest: probably talking about hedge funds, hedge fund managers, folks on wall street's, the top income earners. host: that is how they make their money. guest: they make the money on investments as opposed to salary and wages. that is the argument from a lot of democrats and liberals. it is those moneyed interests that have lobbied to keep this rate low. host: they do have a lobbying presence in d.c.? guest: i would say they always
do. host: vaugn, independent caller. caller: morning. i have comments and questions. we're hearing people call and and make a statement regarding their estate planning and concern for other people that work for them. you mentioned the hedge fund managers. of the other banking corporations. they are not my concern. my concern is people like myself who work every day. i worked as a contractor. i might have a small stock
investment and small ira, a small portion of a small trust that was left from a family member. -- it is those of us that will fall right at the crest, when it drops down to $1 million, $1 million in property we are struggling to pay taxes for -- we are going to have to sell property to actually keep the property. host: you have to be our final word on this. thank you for calling in. joe schatz, thanks for helping our callers understand. now live coverage of the house. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer today will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we
give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask today that you bless the members of the people's house, to be the best and most faithful servants of the people they serve. may they be filled with gratitude at the opportunity they have to serve in this place. we thank you for the abilities they have been given to do their work, to contribute to the common good. may they use their talents as good stewards of your many gifts and thereby be true servants of justice and partners in peace. as the second session of the 112th congress draws near its end and pressing legislative business weighs heavily on this hill and throughout our land, withhold not your spirit of wisdom and truth from this assembly. give each member clarity of thought and purity of motive so
that they may render their service as their bestselves. may all that is done today in this people's house be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fleischmann. mr. fleischmann: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. fleischmann: mr. speaker, i
ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. fleischmann: mr. speaker, i rise today in remembrance of caleb logan cook. caleb was born january 22, 1997, and passed away saturday, december 1, 2012, at the age of 15. caleb was a blessing to his parents and entire family from the day god placed him on this earth. though life was often a struggle for caleb, he met every challenge head on and always with a thoughtful and caring disposition. he was an accomplished boy scout, earned his black belt in tie quan do and recognized for having the highest g.p.a. in his class. in addition to all his high school and extra curricular accomplishments, caleb was engaged politically and always ready to discuss the day's news. a civically active young man, he was truly a shining example of his youth. most of all, caleb was a good friend to my son, jeffrey, a
delightful son to his parents, a loving sibling to his sisters and brother, a blessing to his entire family. caleb will be missed by all and always remembered. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. kucinich: good morning, mr. speaker. i request permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: nearly 50 million americans, over 10 million children live in poverty. 46 million americans on food stamps. according to the census bureau, without social security, over 50% of people 65 and older would live and die in poverty. why do we accept poverty? why do we accept massive unemployment? over 20 million americans are without work. you cannot escape poverty without a job. americans want jobs, not unemployment checks. if you don't have a source of income, you can't own a home. the middle class is disappearing. an unfair tax system is causing
wealth to accelerate upwards, which is why i oppose the bush tax cuts. but more tax increases and no massive jobs program are a prescription for disaster. we need more taxpayers, not more tax increases. you can't rebuild america by retaxing america. poverty and joblessness constitute a national emergency. the private sector is not creating sufficient jobs. congress has a constitutional obligation and power to coin or create money. we can use our power to put millions back to work, rebuilding our infrastructure. h.r. 2990 can accomplish this. it's our choice. increase taxes, cut spending, put the economy in a stall or put millions back to work? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? mrs. schmidt: to address the house for one minute and to rrks my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. schmidt: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the ohio high school athletic
association's 2012 division i state football champion, the muller crusaders. last saturday the crusaders, led by head coach, defeated toledo 20-12 to capture their eighth straight stape championship title. a catholic institution has currently a student enrollment of 925 outstanding young men. since its inception in 1960, muller has enjoyed itself a well-deserved reputation for promoting both academic excellence and athletic prowness. under their first coach who went on to coach notre dame, the crusaders compiled a record of 178 wins, 23 losses and two ties while winning four national championships and enjoying seven undefeated seasons. one of the coach's most favorite players was our very
own john boehner. speaker boehner, who played as a linebacker for the crusaders. following his tenure at the helm, the crusaders have won three additional state championships, including the one last weekend in front of a crowd of 8,834 people in canton, ohio. so to the muller high school football players, coaches, parents, faculty members, fans, i offer my heart felt congratulations on this auspicious congratulations on winning your eighth state championship. god bless you, god bless the muller crusaders, god bless the men of muller. take care. go, crusaders. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize an important day in american history.
tomorrow we will celebrate the 147th anniversary of the abolition of that regrettable institution of slavery. on 6, december, 186 5, the state of georgia became the 27th state to ratify the 13th amendment, marking the 3/4 simple majority necessary to amend the constitution. the 13th amendment accomplished something that the emancipation proclamation did not and perhaps could not do. it declared the nonexistence of slavery in the whole of the united states subject to their jurisdiction. the triumph the 13th amendment represents not just the triumph the 13th amendments represents not just for african-americans but for all americans. should be celebrated every december 6. i invite my colleagues to read a very inciteful article authored by judge james a. wynn jr. of the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit, and i ask unanimous consent that a copy of his article be included in the congressional record. thank you, mr. speaker.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, no republican in congress is trying to protect millionaires and billionaires. much of the impasse in the current negotiations is over who is going to spend the money. republicans do not want higher taxes simply because 1067 of what the federal government spends is lost to waste, fraud and abuse. the most wasteful inefficient way to spend money is to turn it over to the federal government. the best way to create jobs and hold prices steady is to let private citizens spend and invest as they choose. the wealthy do all right even in socialist countries. lower income and working people come out much better in countries that allow the most free enterprise. millionaires and billionaires can take care of themselves.
republicans are simply trying to help create jobs and keep the cost of living from going out of sight for ordinary people. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, democrats and republicans agree that we should preserve tax cuts for all americans on the first $250,000 of family income. this will protect 98% of americans from a tax increase and 97% of small businesses. we have different ideas on the best and fairest way to set rates for the top 2%, the wealthiest americans. let's have that debate in the coming weeks, but let's act on the overwhelming areas of agreement today. this is not about a democratic or republican victory in this chamber. it's about a victory for the american people. instead of moving forward with middle class tax cuts, our friends on the other side of the aisle are trying again to put forth a plan that gives tax
breaks to the richest americans at the expense of our seniors, veterans, disabled and the middle class. it's time for the games to end and let's prove to the american people that it is the people's house. pass the middle class tax cuts today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady ask for unanimous consent? ms. tsongas: i was proud to join my colleagues in bringing the middle class tax cuts to the house floor for an up or down vote. while there is much left to negotiate, there is one step that we can take today? it will provide millions of families and 97% of small businesses with the security of knowing that their income taxes will not rise on january 1. both parties and the american
people agree on the need to pass an extension of the tax cuts for every family on the first $250,000 of income. the senate has passed such a bill. the president stands ready to sign it today, and i have heard from hundreds of constituents urging support for this now. i urge my republican colleagues to join us today in protecting middle class americans and send the senate-passed bill to the president. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> good morning, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barrow: thank you, sir. mr. speaker, the holidays are a time to reflect on the things for which we are grateful as we enjoy the company of family and friends, we should also take time to thank the brave men and women serving in our armed forces. every one of us knows the
tremendous debt we owe our military families. this year as a token of my thanks, i'm donating over 79,000 frequent flier miles i receive for congressional travel for the fisher houses heroes milets program which provides free airline tickets to american soldiers and their families. flying to washington is part of our job and there's no better way to use the miles we accumulate from those trips has to help those troops and their families see each other. i encourage all of my colleagues to donate their miles to the fisher house or a similar charity that helps make a difference this holiday season. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to suspend the rules and pass resolution 825. the clerk: resolution providing for the concurrence by the house in the senate amendments to h.r. 2838, with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lobiondo, and the gentleman from
washington, mr. larsen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on house resolution 825. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lobiondo: mr. speaker, i yield to the chairman of the full committee, mr. mica, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: thank you so much for yielding. first i want to take a moment to thank mr. lobiondo for his outstanding leadership of the coast guard committee. also mr. larsen, the ranking member from washington. i know frank lobiondo has a great love for the united states coast guard. he has worked diligently, long and tirelessly for one of our most important branches, most historic branches of government
over the years. dedicated part of his time, a full commitment, to the united states coast guard. we take up h.r. 2838, today, as we consider that re-authorization for the united states coast guard, congress must authorize every program we create the coast guard by law, must also set the policy and programs and funding levels through our committee. an important responsibility. we have an important responsibility that we are reminded again even in the last few days the death of one of our coast guard officers, chief terrell horn. he was killed protecting the united states. i think it was drug smugglers who took his wife, southern
california, while a small boat was trying to stop their activities. and here again we are painfully reminded of the sacrifices of those men and women in service to the united states. this morning i really would like to dedicate this re-authorization to his memory. the memory of all the men and women who served in the coast guard. i had lost one young lady from saint augustine, i remember that tragic loss of her life and so many others who have served us well in the united states coast guard. an important national security and safety agency that protects us. the day in and day out, 24/7. we are reminded of their sacrifices and today of our
responsibility. to sung seed -- succeed at the many jobs that we assign the members of the coast guard, they must have the resources to -- on the water, docks to complete their important mission. this bill authorizes the coast guard for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. it's a total of $8.6 billion. of course when you talk about trillions and our federal budget and activities, it's a small amount for the more than 50,000 coast guard men and women and for the programs that they undertake again each day. one of the things we try to do is make the regulatory burden on fishermen more reasonable by extending some of the time they undergo to have dockside examinations.
we serve in addition to again, national security purposes, and maritime safety, we also serve an important economic activity and that's the fishing community. this bill also looks towards helping others that we are responsible for in the maritime industry. one of the problems we had is developing a twic card. a transportation worker identification card. we have had great problems with that trying to get that installed so we can find out who is going to enter our ports and that's done safely and securely. particularly with the threats that we face. the huge coastline, the ports, exposure we face from maritime threats. i think hopefully lessened some of the burdensome time required by multiple trips to get folks that need these cards to go to these enrollments.
again, trying to help those who we are supposed to serve and help them do their job in a expedited fashion. we also published, as you know, our committee published a report when we were in the minority, helped author it, the title of the report was the federal government must stop sitting on its assets. in each of the categories and areas we are responsible for in the transportation committee, there is empty public buildings that have sat there, properties underutilized. we want to make certain the taxpayers' resources are used in the best possible way. this bill follows up our report by requiring the coast guard that has currently sidelined some of the -- one of our heavy ice breakers, to make a decision on either being reactivated or demissioned. again, we can't sit on valuable
assets in any of our agencies. finally, this bill restricts the use of post construction of future national security cutters until our national security cutters meet a long promised mission performance capabilities. we started producing a small number of national security cutters, bigger than our 100-plus foot cutters, after 9/11. we had some problems with that program. it's our responsibility to straighten out those problems. make certain that the long promised mission and performance capabilities are met and this bill hopefully leads us in that positive direction. unfortunately, the bill does not restrict the ability of foreign seamen enter outside the united states on nonu.s. flag vessels from suing in the united states courts paid by united states taxpayers. it was something we hoped to achieve. we couldn't put it in this bill. there are some other measures i
would have liked to have had in this bill. it does not, unfortunately, establish the -- what we passed in the house, a uniform national stapped for ballast water discharges. that provision is supported by many in the house and by the u.s. and international maritime industry. we have done a good part of the job. i think we met our responsibility. i am pleased that we are here to authorize for a period of two years the united states coast guard. its operations and its programs, and support the men and women who support us. with that i urge the passage of h.r. 2838, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: i rise in support of the resolution introduced by my colleague from new jersey and chairman of the subcommittee, mr. lobiondo.
before i begin my remarks, i want to join mr. mica and of course many others in offering my condolences to the entire coast guard family for the tragic loss of one of their shape mates during a drug interdiction operation in the waters off of southern california this past weekend. we all recognize that the service men and women of the coast guard willingly and routinely expose themselves to highly dangerous conditions on behalf of our nation. nevertheless, it's a profound tragedy when a service member makes that sacrifice and our thoughts and prayers are with the coast guard at this time. the legislation i stand in support of today has been developed as a compromise for the last two months with negotiations in the senate. it amends h.r. 2838, the coast guard and maritime transportation act of 2012 and passed the house last november, and incorporates numerous provisions from this amendment to h.r. 2838, that cleared the senate in september. i appreciate mr. lobiondo's willingness to work with me on this legislation in a bipartisan and open manner. i'm confident in saying that
this bill embodies a fair and bipartisan compromise for everyone involved and we should feel proud of its work. as the ranking member of the coast guard community, it's been a high priority for me to revamp certain things to revitalize our necessaryic maritime industries. this legislation marks a significant achievement in that. it creates jobs that are vital in the shipbuilding industry by taking steps towards improving our ice breaker fleet and finishing the program of record for responsible medium. earlier this year i had a chance to visit job creating shipyards that is part of the modernization effort of. the shipyard gives good-paying jobs to menls and others throughout the country. throughout the authorization the maritime administration will improve portions of those shipyards and i'm pleased that is included in this bill as well. we have also reformed a number of key programs. the coast guard is one of the most expansive missions in the
federal government. this multimission maritime military service is responsible for a broad range of activities, including mariner licensing, emergency oil response, navigation safety. the coast guard remains indess pinsible in the maintenance of a reliable and secure marine supply chain that supports maritime operations that supports $649 billion annually to the u.s. grks d.p., sustaining more than 13 million jobs. this legislation authorizes funding levels for both the coast guard and the reserve that provide for increased funding levels in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 over the fiscal years 2012 level. i believe it is funding levels in the bill do remain insufficient to address the documented needs of the coast guard, the coast guard has been asked to do more with less and i'm afraid their own choice in this time of budget uncertainty is to do less with less and that's just wrong. while i prefer these levels to be higher, i understand these
funding levels are the best under the constraints. we must be aware that funding levels under this legislation are absent any consideration what will be needed to address the estimated $260 million in damages to coast guard facilities in the northeast as a result of hurricane sandy. these costs will be addressed in future, i assume. i want to highlight as well this legislation contains several provision that is will include the coast guard's readiness in the important arctic region. it directs the coast guard to complete its business analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of reactivating the heavy ice breaker, polar sea. this analysis is overdue and vitally important. the president and coast guard has only one ice breaker, the healy. the coast guard expected in 2013 to reactivated the other heavy ice breaker, the fact remains the fleet remains severely undercapitalized and overextended. as it will be years before new ice breaker can be delivered, it's essential we make informed
decisions on the polar sea now to have a balanced assessment of coast guard polar's breaker capabilities in the near term. this legislation also advance the provisions that address many administrative, personnel, procurement, and regulatory issues affecting the coast guard. bringing the coast guard into parity with other armed services, these authorities have been included. additionally this legislation contains authorities to improve efficiency and oversight of the coast guard's major acquisition programs, especially new advanced procurement authority and development of multiyear capital investment programs. the bill includes language i authored that requires the coast guard to complete the procurement of 180 r.b.m.'s as originally planned in the program of record for this vessel. this is a critical piece of maritime security and the completion of these boats will lead to additional job creation in small shipyards. besides acressing the needs of the coast guard, it advances several important initiatives to support the u.s. merchant marine. title 3 of the legislation
protects the jones act by strength yening review and requirements of future administrative waivers. it calls for the provision originally called for h.r. 3202, the american mariner jobs protection act. should help preserve more opportunities for u.s. carriers and sea fairers. the title also provides for formal authorization for the committee on maritime transportation system. and title 4 of the legislation includes several provision that is improve the maritime administration's ability to accept, manage, and recycle vessels held in the national defense reserve fleet. i'm also pleased that title 6 re-authorizes the marine reduction and prevention act. more and more marine debris from the 2011 japanese tsunami continues to wash on the shores of the pacific coast, including my state of washington. japan in the midst of the recovery of this disaster has shown extraordinarily leadership and friendship by recently announcing they will donate $5
million to the cleanup. it's important we authorize the marine debris act to ensure the noaa has the author it needs to work with the states to address this threat. so i very much appreciate the cooperation of chairman lobiondo for including this important environmental measure. and also applaud my colleague, mr. thompson, for his work to see this program re-authorized and mr. faverplet this legislation reflects fair and balanced compromise. we have an obligation to support the coast guard and support our u.s. merchant marine. have a safe and secure maritime environment, good for the economy, and good for the american people n my estimation this legislation fulfills that obligation. i urge its passage today. just briefly want to thank once gren mr. lobiondo for his in-- once again mr. lobiondo for his incredible work in bringing this legislation to passage. with that i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: i rise in support of house resolution 825. 825 covers the coast guard through fear 2014, a level that allows the administration's requested military pay increase for fiscal year 2013 and provide for military pay increase for fiscal year 2014 at a level consistent with c.b.o.'s estimate on the rate of inflation. the bill provides funding for the coast guard of levels that will reverse the irresponsible cuts proposed by the obama administration and will ensure the service has what it needs to successful conduct its missions. the legislation includes critical provisions that will have the coast guard and its service members greater parity with the counterparts in the department of defense, something we've worked very hard to achieve. h.r. 2838 has reforms and improvements to the coast
guard's acquisition programs and activities. the bill encourages job growth in the maritime sector by cutting e.p.a., t.s.a. and coast guard regulatory burdens on small businesses. finally, the bill enhances the security of u.s. vessels and cruise transiting high-risk waters, re-authorizes the national security aspects of the maritime administration for fiscal year 2013, and makes several important improvements to noaa's marine debris program, as noted by mr. larsen. h.r. 2838 was put together in cooperation with the minority and with our counterparts in the senate. i'd like to thank mr. mica, chairman of the full committee, i'd like to thank mr. rahall, the ranking member of the full committee, but i especially want to thank mr. larsen. we've had i think a model for how a committee or a subcommittee should operate. we've been focused on results. we've been focused on
incorporating good ideas. rick, i very much appreciated your cooperation in moving forward on these very important issues for the nation. finally, i'd like to thank the staff on both sides for their work and their help in this legislation. we rely on them a great deal. they've worked in an extraordinary manner and it's very much appreciate and hopefully we'll get the results we need. i also want to take a moment to underscore the very dangerous work that the coast guard does to keep our nation and our shores safe. we were all shocked and very saddened to hear the news this weekend that a coasty lost his life in the line of duty. this underscores how our coast guard men and women put their life at risk each and every day. they're really underrecognized and underappreciated for the work they do, and with drugs being such a great scourge in
our country, it sounds like this coasty was just brutally murdered. so our heart goes out to the men and women of the coast guard, his colleagues, his family, his friends, chief petty officer terrell horn was serving his country, gave his life for his country. and, again, our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends. we are tremendously thankful for all the brave men and women of the coast guard and the work they do each and every day. i urge all members to support 2838, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. hahn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. larsen. thank you, mr. lobiondo for your work on this. i rise to offer my support for the coast guard
re-authorization for fiscal year 2013 and 2014. united states coast guard plays an integral role to our nation's homeland security. they are on the front lines each and every day ensuring that our ports and waterways remain safe and secure. as a co-found irand co-chair of the congressional -- co-founder and co-chair of the congressional ports caucus, we're learning more and more every day about the critical role that our coast guard plays in the security of our ports. our caucus members had a very productive conversation with vice admiral peter neppinger in april whom i got to know very well in los angeles when he was the captain of the ports of los angeles and long beach, and he discussed the coast guard's critical role in providing security and disaster preparedness at our nation's ports. that's why providing the coast guard with the necessary ships and gear they need is so
important. however, it's neither the ships nor the gear that makes up the heart of the united states coast guard. it is the men and women who fight every day who make this country a safer place. they serve with bravery and poise and are sometimes called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. and as has been talked about this morning, unfortunately that is what occurred this past weekend when a brave coast guardman gave his life for this country. on december 2, chief petty officer horn was killed when he and his team came upon a boat suspected of drug smuggling and were rammed upon approaching it. the impact knocked officer horn and another coast guardsman into the water inflicting horn with a severe traumatic head injury that ultimately proved to be fatal. chief officer -- chief petty officer terrell horn was a distinguished coast guardman
and his life is deeply cherished by our nation as we reflect on his unwavering commitment to protecting our country. he and his family were from rodondo beach, which is in my current congressional district, and his sacrifice serves as a stark reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices our men and women in uniform make boldly for this country each and every day. as my colleagues consider this bill before us, i ask that we all keep officer horn's family, friends and fellow officers in the coast guard in your thoughts and prayers and never forget the sacrifices that our men and women make for each -- each and every day. i appreciate all the comments that have been made this morning reflecting this same thought. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.
the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bonamici: i rise in support of h.r. 2838 to protect our marine economy, protect our maritime borders and protect the brave coast guard personnel, including the personnel of the sector columbia river which is headquartered in oregon's first congressional district. i thank the coast guard subcommittee for their work on this and the full and ranking member of the full transportation and infrastructure committee. in supporting the basic mission of the coast guard, this bill includes language to re-authorize another important mission carried out, noaa's marine debris program. in june of this year, coastal
residents in my home state of oregon found a 66-foot dock resting on a beach near the town of new port, oregon. the dock was just one piece of many that scientists have estimated to be a debris field with as much as 1.5 million tons of debris that were washed into the ocean by the tsunami that struck japan in march of 2011. beyond the obvious navigational dangers post posed by the dock and the -- dangers posed by the dock and the debris, the debris also brings with it invasive species that could harm our maritime environment. not only is this debris dangerous, it's costly to remove, and the threat of a significant increase in debris arriving our coasts has caused many state and local governments serious budgetary concerns. oregon spent more than $80,000 just removing that one dock. since the arrival of the japanese dock in oregon, other
members and i heard from constituents who call on us to provide them with some assistance in dealing with this unprecedented situation. the marine debris program at noaa makes some funding available through grants provided to coastal communities and state and local governments. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. bonamici: the bill re-authorizes noaa's marine debris program. that's very important. in addition to that, i introduced bipartisan legislation with congresswoman herrera beutler to expedite that funding which can currently take about a year from -- about a year. so i urge my colleagues to support our coastal communities by supporting this legislation and the bill before us today. thank you to the chairs and ranking member for your hard work, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: continue to
reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. farr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. farr: thank you. thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today to highlight title 6 of the coast guard and maritime transportation act of 2012 which amends the marine debris program. this partnership between noaa and the united states coast guard has been hugely beneficial to our nation's coastal communities. it has improved research and debris removal activities at sea and build greater understanding of the challenges we face in addressing this threat. there is he' so many successful projects -- there's so many successful projects funded by the marine program. the program spends far less than $10 million. i want to highlight the fish and wildlife foundation for marine debris remp and
technology. from the -- research and technology. from 2005 to 2011, this program supported 46 projects involving fishermen, ports, marinists and they leveraged $2.7 million in noaa funding with $2.9 million in nonfederal matching funds. another program, fishing for energy, is one of an innovative program that has collection bins for commercial fishermen to dispose of unwanted fishing gear. it's disposed more than 700 of obsolete dare elect gear which -- dire elect gear which has lost marketable lobster and saves up to $792 million in damages to boat propelers from direlect fishing gear. if that isn't enough, the energy from them recycles gear. it doesn't cost the fishermen
anything to dispose of this gear and that's why it's such a successful program. this small federal investment results in huge cost savings. marine debris is much larger and a growing problem. with disasters in japan last year and the recent storms like sandy, cleaning up debrises requires both resources and coordination between agencies and states. while i commend the bipartisan support and leadership of my colleagues to get this bill to the president, i'm disappointed that the program's authorization has not been extended. i will continue to work for permanent re-authorization of the marine debris program because it is a critical for program development in coastal communities. i urge my colleagues to support this bill which has bipartisan, bicameral compromise. i thank chairman mica, chairman hastings and ranking member rahall, ranking member markey for their leadership in bringing my bill, h. 1171, to the floor for passage out of
the house. and chairman lobiondo and ranking member larsen for including this important language in this coast guard and marine transportation act of 2012. i urge your support. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: mr. speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak on this important resolution and want to urge everyone to support its passage and finally i do want to as well thank the staff for their great work in putting this together. it's a bit of a dance to put all the pieces together in a piece of legislation like this. they did a great job. i want to extend my thanks to them. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lobiondo: once again, mr. speaker, i'd like to thank everyone who's been involved in this process and, again, especially thank mr. larsen for the cooperative initiatives and efforts that we've been able to
undertake. we hope that all the members of the house of representatives will think about the sacrifices that the men and women of the coast guard make and vote affirmatively for this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 825. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. .
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass senate concurrent resolution 50, expressing the sense of congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the internet has thrived. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the rightle of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 50, concurrent resolution expressing the sense of congress regarding actions to preserve and advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the internet has thrived. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs.
blackburn, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the record for s.con.res. 50. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. this week representatives from 193 countries are meeting in dubai to re-examination an international treaty dealing with telecommunicationings. several hostile countries are seeking to use this opportunity to impose new international regulations on the internet. we need to send a strong message to the world that the internet has thrived under a decentralized bottom up,
multistakeholder governance model. that is why i stand in strong support of senator rubio's senate concurrent resolution 50. the u.s. is united in its opposition to international control over internet governance, and we have seen leadership pushing back against ceding more power to international telecommunications union, referred to as the i.t.u., a branch of the united nations. and some want to give it new powers. several countries see the internet as a tool for political and/or economic control that they want to exploit. for example, russia's putin has openly stated his intention to seek, and i'm quoting, international control over the internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the i.t.u., end quote. and just last week, the syrian government shut off internet
access as the regime sought top suppress the free exchange of information among its private citizens. but it's because the internet is the ultimate tool of political and economic liberation that we should foster and protect it, not give those who fear its impact on politics and the economy the power to repress its continued innovation and untapped potential. i also want to make an important point about our legitimacy in the fight to keep the internet thrive democratic and decentralized. unfortunately, we did undermine our credibility when the federal communications commission imposed net neutrality regulations without the proper statutory authority to do so, even ambassador at the state department has made the point. he said in 2010 that the net neutrality proceeding and i am
queeting is one that could be employed by regimes that don't agree with our perspectives about essentially avoiding regulation of the internet and trying to be sure not to do anything to damage its dynamism and its organic development. it could be employed as a pretext or excuse for undertaking public policy activities that we would disagree with pretty profoundly, end quote. we need to pass s.con.res. 50 and rebuild our credibility in support of internet freedom. regulating beyond our authority at home sets a very bad example when we want to oppose truly devastating regulations at the international level. despite our domestic disagreements on telecom polcy, one thing both sides of the aisle can agree on is we should uphold the internent governance model that's working. let's not try to fix what's not
broken. in dubai we want our country promoting private markets and u.s. interests. let's encourage the decentralized governance model and let's show leadership instead of giving away broad regulatory powers to those who don't deserve and should not have it. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. eshoo: mr. speaker, it's fitting that the week in which the world conference on international telecommunications convenes in dubai that the house will once again take up a resolution demonstrating the bipartisan commitment of congress to preserve the open structure and multistakeholder approach that has guided the internet for the past two decades. i think that we are all very,
very proud that there is not only bipartisan but bicameral support underlying this resolution, and there is complete support across the executive branch of our government. in other words, the united states of america is totally unified around -- on this issue of an open structure, a multistakeholder approach that has guided the internet over the past two decades. the senate resolution before us today, mr. speaker, makes a minor technical change to a resolution that the house passed unanimously in august by a vote of 414-0. i have no objection to this change and i ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure. i yield back the balance of my
time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield four minutes to the jamplet oregon, mr. -- gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, who is chairman of the subcommittee on telecommunications and the internet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized for four minutes. mr. walden: i thank my colleague and friend for the time. i rise today in support of senate concurrent resolution 50, which as you have heard opposes international regulation of the internet. it's virtually identical to the language our friend and colleague, representative mary bono mack, put forward in h.con.res. 127, which was introduced last year, earlier this year and passed by my subcommittee and the full energy and commerce committee and went on to pass this house without opposition. this vote we ue phi that language and send a strong bipartisan, bicameral signal about america's commitment to an unregulated internet. i want to thank representative
bono mack for championing this important legislation to keep the internet free from government regulation. i also wish to thank f.c.c. commissioner mcdowell who has tirelessly sounded the call not only about the peril we face if we stand idly by as countries like russia and china seek to extort control over the internet, but also the f.c.c.'s only actions adopting network neutrality rules undermine america's case abroad. i also fear that recent targets of cybersecurity executive orders here at home may be cited back to us by some foreign nations, with them accusing us of telling them to do as we say, but not as we do. historical hands off regulatory policy has allowed the internet to become the greatest vehicle for global, social, and economic liberty since the printing press. despite the current economic climate, it continues to grow at an astonishing pace. the f.c.c. commissioner and are
in dubai this week as u.s. delegates, our committee has also sent representatives from both parties to keep an eye on the proceedings. they are the 193 member countries of the united nations are gathered to consider whether to apply to the internet a regulatory regime that the internet telecommunications union created in the 1980's for old-fashioned telephone service. as well as whether to swallow the internet's nongovernmental organizational structure whole and make it part of the united nations. neither of these are acceptable outcomes and must be strongly opposed by our delegation. among those supportive of such regulation is russian president putin who spoke positively about the idea of establishing international control over the internet, to use his own words. some countries have even proposed regulations that would allow them to read citizens' email in the name of security. requirecies zention to register
their email addresses for tracking purposes, and to charge for internet access to their countries on a per click basis. this resolution rejects these proposals by taking the radical position that if the most revolutionary advance in technology, commerce, and social discourse in the next century is not broken, as you heard others say there's no reason to quote-unquote, fix it. the ability of the internet to grow at this staggering pace is due largely to the flexibility of the multistakeholder model that governs the internet so successfully today. nongovernmental institutions now manage the internet's core functions with input from private and pun lick sector participants, and -- public sector participants, and this structure prevents governmental or nongovernmental actors from controlling the content it carries. the nint has become a driver of jobs, information, business expansion, investment, innovation.
moving away from the model would harm these abilities. as the united states delegation continues its work, this resolution is an excellent, bipartisan demonstration of our nation's commitment to preserve the multistakeholder governance model and keep the internet free from international regulation. i yield back the balance of my time, and encourage my colleagues to support passage of this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, who is a member of the at this time i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, who is a member of the telecommunications and internet subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for four minutes. mr. scalise: thank mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady from tennessee for yielding and for her leadership on this issue.
and has been noted, right now in dubai an arm of the united nations is considering trying to take international control over parts of the internet. if you look right now in a struggling economy that we have in the united states, one of the few bright spots is the telecommunications industry. one of the reasons as a computer science major i would argue, one of the reasons that the telecommunications, technology industry has been so successful, is because the government hasn't figured out how to regulate it and slow it down. yet here you have a proposal by the united nations coming out of the united nations to interfere with that multistakeholder organization that's been and allowed this industry to be so successful and allowed the internet to shape and dramatically improve so many people's lives. so many of the things that we can do today and all the conveniences that have been added through great new apps and technology have come from this multistakeholder governance of the internet. yet here you have the united nations trying to step in and let's be real clear about who some of these countries are that want to do this and what they are intending to do if they were
to be successful. countries like russia and china are leading this. some of the arab nations right now, where you see uprisings, many of those uprisings have been brought through social media, through an open and free internet where people can come together in cyberspace and hold their leadership accountable, and in some cases rise up against oppressive government. those governments would like nothing more than to be able to shut that down by taking over control of the internet. i know it's been brought up before by the gentlelady from tennessee and others, but i think it's important to note that if vladmir putin, when he was meeting with the i.t.u. secretary-general said his goal, the reason that he and others like china are pursuing this, is to establish international control over the internet through these new i.t.u. rules. so while these discussions are going on in dubai, i think it's critical that this piece of legislation is something that we can arm our supporters with, can arm our supporters with, those who stand up